Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Mikee

  1. right, a contract is specific as to the parties involved and to the obligations and benefits. By reference to the trader principle contracts are entered into voluntarily. The social contract is not defined by any of these characteristics. For example how can there be a contract if one party, such as an individual citizen, has not signed any such document, and the other party, such as the government, can change the terms of the contract on whim?
  2. would it be correct then to say that the social contract is an anti-concept
  3. this might be a good read: http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Lost-Constitution-Presumption-Liberty/dp/0691123764/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303816333&sr=8-1
  4. so if consent for forming a government is not required then government has to be constitutionally limited.
  5. more smearing: http://www.american.com/archive/2011/april/atlas-shrugs-off-an-opportunity-alienates-viewers http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/opinion/17dowd.html?_r=3&src=ISMR_HP_LI_LST_FB
  6. "Many classical liberals rely on a tabula rasa or "blank slate" concept of the person. Under such a conception culture and experience 'write themselves' upon the person, who is -- for the most part -- malleable. But this is wrong. And if we think of culture and evolution working in tandem, we'll get a lot further -- not only in our thinking, but in our communication strategies." Max Borders
  7. here is the video on pinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qlvn89AhYKQ
  8. he should turn it into a book me thinks
  9. http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-uk-pull-search-teams-out-japan-tepco-admits-situation-severe#comment-1067486
  10. she did mention that it was a greek philosopher who said that as I recall in the video
  11. would do you make of this description of an agnostic: An agnostic doesn't simply "not know". An agnostic can also believe that there *is* no knowing - that there might be something, but if there is, it's of a form that is unknowable. I, for instance, believe that there *may* be some force out there, but I *firmly* believe that no human can possibly have the slightest idea of how to conceptualize it or affect it or know how to communicate with it, yet I still place myself among the ranks of agnostics. This is not an issue of knowing or not knowing (that is, "being sure"). This is an issue of believing that whatever is out there is unknowable, even were it to present itself. It's a difference between certitude and understanding. It's like the difference between not having a powerful enough microscope and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If you don't have a microscope powerful enough, you won't know what an electron looks like. However, Heisenberg goes farther, in that he asserted that you can't *ever* know. It is intrinsically unknowable, so there's no point in speculation.
  12. http://blogs.forbes.com/richardsalsman/2011/02/10/another-illiberal-democracy-in-egypt/#post_comments interesting first comment
  13. I have to say the anti-capitalists come off as the hypocrites in all this talk about hypocrisy.
  14. Mikee

    Hip Hop

    any songs in particular that come to mind. I like this one:
  15. Mikee

    Hip Hop

    anyone listen to the roots?
  16. I came across this video by Tyler Cowen on free markets and morality do you guys agree/disagree with its premise?
  17. what do you guys think of that dennett video?
  18. Grames, what do you make of this http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2004/12/are-you-free.html
  19. http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2010/09/in-defense-of-price-gouging.html
  20. Ah, yes... Michelle, because some ding-dong brain-dead loser at a rally who can't even spell the obscenities on his banner is exactly equivalent to a ding-dong brain-dead loser who is being seriously touted as a nominee for the Presidency of the United States.
  21. The book ITSELF makes this point very clear. Yes, if you don't read the book, you won't know that. No one said that this will change history, it merely takes into account the feelings of a large number of people offended by the use of this vile word. It stirps no one of the right to read the other edition. There is no force involved in offering another choice.
  22. It isn't faking reality when you publish an edited book and tell everyone precisely what editing you have done. And it is not "hypersensitive whim worshipping" to be offended by racist, hateful slurs. Ayn Rand challenges people who made lesser remarks about Jews, since she was a Jew. Was she being a "hypersensitive whim worshipper?" And people do have the right to be offended, it is one of the multiplicity of rights that people have.
  23. Harris seems to invoke the stolen concept here too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-new-years-resolution-fo_b_802480.html
  • Create New...